Trump’s putting his thumb on the mail-in ballot scale. The Supreme Court is letting him.
With midterms weeks away, the decision clears the way for a rule change that feels for all the world like voter suppression.
There are those who would argue that Donald Trump poses the greatest threat to American democracy we’ve ever seen from a sitting president. However, with its decision to allow Trump’s executive order on limiting the use of mail-in ballots to move forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has surpassed him.
The Constitution clearly gives states, and not the president, the primary authority to administer elections. Congress has secondary authority, but only under emergency conditions. That means the president’s executive order, which directs various federal departments to impose rules on mail-in balloting if it is “feasible” and “lawful,” is more than a cynical attempt to save Republicans from losing congressional seats. His executive order is blatantly unconstitutional.
Yet, in a ruling that seems bizarre on its face, the Supreme Court has decided, with a crucial midterm election just weeks away, that Trump’s executive order does not interfere with the states’ authority “‘to create and enforce a legal code’ for elections.”
That’s nonsense. In my view, and in the opinion of 56 former judges who submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, Trump’s order is all about interference. Changing rules just weeks before mail-in ballots are set to be sent to voters is an exercise in chaos. It is designed to hamper voting in blue states whose cities are filled with African American voters and others who tend to cast ballots for Democrats.
Voter suppression is the apparent goal, and the Supreme Court has played an outsized role in helping the Trump administration to get there. Even now, as the U.S. Department of Justice petitions U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani to reverse her nationwide injunction on Trump’s executive order, the Supreme Court looms in the background, ready to further erode democracy.
Of course, the threat posed by the court is about more than just one ruling. It is about the justices’ pattern of acceding to the whims of a president who seems to view the Constitution as a suggestion, rather than the law.
In 2024, the court shocked legal observers by ruling in Trump v. the United States that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions they take while in office. And just a week ago, the court allowed construction of the president’s legally dubious $400 million ballroom to continue while lower court appeals play out, knowing the ballroom will likely be near completion by the time the courts catch up.
Still, the Supreme Court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices Trump nominated to the bench, does not have the last word on his policies. In America, the people have the final say. That’s why this latest gambit to cripple mail-in voting is so dangerous, and it is why the Supreme Court must be held accountable.
The people must sit in judgment of a president who starts a war that results in skyrocketing gas prices and American loss of life. The people must sit in judgment of a president who demolishes half of the White House without congressional approval. The people must sit in judgment of a president who wrecks the economy with illegal tariffs, and the people must sit in judgment of a president whose immigration crackdown costs American citizens their lives.
Polling has already indicated that Trump, whose 33% approval rating represents his all-time low, could drag his party down in the upcoming midterm elections. But as a seasoned politician once told me, the only poll that matters is the one that takes place on Election Day. Trump understands this truth, and he is trying to put his thumb on the scales. That’s to be expected, but he should not have the Supreme Court’s help.
At its best, America’s highest court should be apolitical, driven both by the letter and the spirit of the law. It should serve as a check on the worst instincts of politicians, and as a guardrail against tyranny. This court has failed on all those fronts, and has instead allowed itself to be driven and shaped by conservative ideology. It has fallen so far that it has seemingly been co-opted by those who would stop Americans from exercising their most basic freedom — the vote.
